All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

If I actually thought your questions were serious, I would answer. However, we established last night that your ‘questions’ are just you explicitly working to divide the left, so...there’s no reply that I can give that would stop what you’re going to do. You did it in the lead up to 2016. You’ve done it for the entire three years since. You have made it very clear that you not only want the left to be ineffective and splintered, but have absolutely no interest in working to unify, unless it’s behind your guy, the only guy that matters, Saint Bernardus Immaculatus, He Who Is Perfect In All Ways, One True King-Priest of Socialism, Half-Divine.

Anyone else, you are gonna work your best to undermine, just as you have for the last several years. Oh, you SAY you’ll vote democrat, but...*shrug* Your words and your post history over the last several years has left you with the general trustworthiness and believability of a guy selling beach front property in Colorado...

Put simply...

All of the unity in the world isn't going to even have a chance at fixing the sort of potentially glaring issues that I mentioned.

Never mind that I've already pointed out that an actual Democrat(Warren) doesn't have the issues that I mentioned.

Look...

If Democrats want to just ignore that sort of thing, that's certainly a call that they can make.

That said, they just worked on the assumption that Trump had right around "Zero..." chance with Latino voters the last time out. When the numbers were finally there, Trump actually did better than Romney with Latinos.

Not taking a close look at every single potential weakness this time out may very well lead to handing Trump a gift wrapped win.

[numberthirty]

Not even just Warren...

Let's take Mayor Pete.

While the guy feels exactly like he would field a "Gets Right Around 'Nothing...' Done For John/Jane Public..."/"Looks Out For Money..." Democratic administration, I don't think for one second that the guy is going to hand Trump the stick to hit him with. The guy is just competent enough not to pull that.

Obviously, Gabbard and Bloomberg have the same sorts of issues as Biden. That said, Bloomberg is the only one of that pair with a realistic shot that he will hopefully fumble.

[Mister Mets]

The Republican party is insane:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ical-2024-poll

That poll's a little odd, since it's technically one where Republicans can vote for all available choices (It's not asking for their preferred choice, but who they consider voting for.

Again, please seriously consider what this means...

Whether it is something you want to have to contend with or not, this is the actual state of things...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-party-094642

Is there any indication that AOC will be able to swing a purple state like Michigan or Florida?

Is it unpopular?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...ll-health-care

You are a conservative and here is an honest question, how do you defend the current health care system in the US?

I live in Canada and we have no medical bankruptcies, Canada spends less of its GDP on health care than the US does and Americans are going to Canada to buy cheaper medicine.

As for the college thing, I think Bernie can counter with the fact Trump ran Trump University, Trump will try to brush that off, I am sure we will cherry-pick arguments against Biden as well, but I do think a lot of what he does can be countered.

I'll note I'm not defending the current healthcare system. I do think particular alternatives could be worse, but that gets to be a different question than polls.

The moments Medicare for All is defined the way Sanders describes it, support craters.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for

A caveat is that "Medicare For All" is reasonably popular when details are kept vague. But these numbers are just north of 50% rather than 70%.

https://slate.com/business/2019/10/m...s-popular.html

An advantage of the phrase has been its ideological slipperiness. It fits several explanations, allowing centrist politicians to claim it along with the left. Voters will have very different impressions. Some will want a single payer system. Some just want the option of being able to buy into Medicare (Pete Buttigieg's "Medicare For All Who Want It".)

[numberthirty]

...

Is there any indication that AOC will be able to swing a purple state like Michigan or Florida?

Compared to what?

The crushing wins that Democrats put together there in 2016?

[Mister Mets]

She did beat him in 2016. A few thousand votes in States that practiced voter suppression gave him the election. He will lose the popular vote again. The question is whether he squeezes out an electoral win again.

Presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

Determining how to unseat Trump is going to involve figuring out how to win the swing states.

I'll never understand this. I went to the ER and the bill came out to $1800. If I didn't have the VA I'd be out a lot of money. How did the GOP con their constituents into believing having their health care financially covered is a negative thing?

It's not exclusively the GOP. Single payer is a more liberal version of the Public Option that was too left-wing for Democrats when they had control of Congress and the White House a decade ago.

As for why people don't support it, there are significant tradeoffs. Taking out the profit motive could disincentivize innovation. Someone is going to have to make the difficult choices of when something is too expensive to be worth the cost.

The biggest problem may be that a significant chunk of voters are happy with employer-based health insurance (a legacy on wage caps during World War 2.) This is obviously a system that doesn't work for everyone, but does mean there are stakeholders afraid of losing the current status quo.

All of this should be prefaced with *white*. See 1964-Present.

Trump is making non-trivial improvements among African American voters.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...erican-polling

Your regular reminder that Hillary was so disliked, she got more votes than any white man who ever won the presidency, and more than Obama in 2012.

And she lost to a guy who was caught on tape grabbing women by the pussy.

I actually think the Juanita Broaddrick accusation is pretty bad for old Bill, way worse than the affair the Republicans tried to oust him over.

But here's the thing a lot of people just ignored, 2 wrongs don't make a right and I do not think it's fair to blame Hillary Clinton for these things her husband is accused of doing and what Trump did was a cheap stunt to avoid responsibility for his actions.

I do not like Hilliary Clinton, but I wouldn't put all the baggage from her husband on her, I disliked her policy positions and criticize her for those, but I do not think Bill's actions negate Trump's actions and I do not think that should have made things a wash.

I would be worried about seeing a repeat of 2016 if Biden is the pick.



But if you have an exciting candidate, people are more likely to go out and vote for that person, over someone who isn't.

Hilliary Clinton's campaign was based on not being Trump and that was not enough. Biden needs a better reason for people to vote from beside the fact that he is not Trump, Warren is not Trump, Yang is not Trump, Bernie is not Trump, Mayor Pete is not Trump, etc.

Biden has done little to articulate a vision that would make him exciting.

I also think the failure of neoliberal economic policies is part of the reason we see the rise of Trumpism.

This raises an interesting question: How often do we actually get an exciting candidate? How do we gauge that?

One factor is that different voters will find different things exciting.

Even the candidates we might agree are generally considered exciting (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama) ran in historically favorable general election environments.

Compared to what?

The crushing wins that Democrats put together there in 2016?

Debbie Stabenow won reelection.

The former minority leader of the State Senate was elected Governor of Michigan by 9.5 points.

Meanwhile, Sanders' endorsed candidate in Florida's governor's race lost that election.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...a-politically/

[The Overlord]

That poll's a little odd, since it's technically one where Republicans can vote for all available choices (It's not asking for their preferred choice, but who they consider voting for.

Is there any indication that AOC will be able to swing a purple state like Michigan or Florida?

I'll note I'm not defending the current healthcare system. I do think particular alternatives could be worse, but that gets to be a different question than polls.

The moments Medicare for All is defined the way Sanders describes it, support craters.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for

A caveat is that "Medicare For All" is reasonably popular when details are kept vague. But these numbers are just north of 50% rather than 70%.

https://slate.com/business/2019/10/m...s-popular.html

An advantage of the phrase has been its ideological slipperiness. It fits several explanations, allowing centrist politicians to claim it along with the left. Voters will have very different impressions. Some will want a single payer system. Some just want the option of being able to buy into Medicare (Pete Buttigieg's "Medicare For All Who Want It".)

I feel like it is ''unpopular'' in certain polls due to semantics and efforts by the insurance industry to bad mouth it. The US health care system is insanely wasteful, IMO, it makes your health care system seem like a corporate welfare scheme.

Do you think Canada has a better or worse system than the US? Canada pays less money for its system than the US does and Canada has cheaper drugs and no medical bankruptcies. How many people in Canada want to change their system and how many people in the US change their system?

Presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

Determining how to unseat Trump is going to involve figuring out how to win the swing states.

It's not exclusively the GOP. Single payer is a more liberal version of the Public Option that was too left-wing for Democrats when they had control of Congress and the White House a decade ago.

As for why people don't support it, there are significant tradeoffs. Taking out the profit motive could disincentivize innovation. Someone is going to have to make the difficult choices of when something is too expensive to be worth the cost.

The biggest problem may be that a significant chunk of voters are happy with employer-based health insurance (a legacy on wage caps during World War 2.) This is obviously a system that doesn't work for everyone, but does mean there are stakeholders afraid of losing the current status quo.

Trump is making non-trivial improvements among African American voters.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...erican-polling

And she lost to a guy who was caught on tape grabbing women by the pussy.

This raises an interesting question: How often do we actually get an exciting candidate? How do we gauge that?

One factor is that different voters will find different things exciting.

Even the candidates we might agree are generally considered exciting (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama) ran in historically favorable general election environments.

I suppose that would be a subjective category, I think Bernie has the most interesting policies. I think both Obama and Bill Clinton had a lot of personal charisma, but I have mixed feelings towards Obama, but I do not like Bill Clinton, I think his legacy does not hold up and some of the stuff he was accused of he may actually be guilty of. For me, bold policy ideas are exciting than personal charisma.

But man, Biden is having trouble not babbling and has no exciting ideas. I just don't see how he is the brave Knight who will defeat Trump.

[numberthirty]

Sure, Biden's mental acuity worries me. Bernie's inability to beat Hillary Clinton, muster more support than Biden to date, and awful metrics in swing states is far, far more worrisome.

I put Bidens sharpness in the same boat I put Bernie's heart issues - makes me cringe, doesn't change the facts on the ground right now.

This comes down to pretty "First Day..."/"Kindergarten..." stuff.

If what is in blue is as you say it is, what does it tell you if Biden is not the Samsonite Gorilla while your seemingly incredibly flawed and weak Sanders is the suitcase?

If this Sanders that you are asserting is a walking train wreck is competing with Biden, how will Biden take the guy that beat HRC(since you seem to believe that HRC beating Sanders is some sort of an indicator...)?

[4saken1]

But doesn't that go against the argument presented here that it doesn't matter who the nominee is, people have a moral duty to vote for that person to defeat Trump.

Clinton supporters voting for Trump or staying home undermines the arguments they have been making for years now.

So what is more important for these people, avenging Hillary Clinton's by defeating Sanders if he wins the nomination or actually defeating Trump?

I think most of them will vote for Sanders, just like most Sanders supporters voted for Hillary. Many will stay at home because they don't think their single vote will count, though, and they can't bring themselves to vote for Sanders. Also, if Sanders loses against Trump, it will be a vindication in their eyes of Hillary being the wrong candidate against Trump in 2016. One of Sanders supporters favorite things to do is show polls that 'prove' that he would have beaten Trump, while at the same time saying how unreliable polls are because they also predicted that Hillary would win. Another thing to consider is that 1 in 4 Hillary supporters voted for McCain in 2008. While they didn't dislike McCain as much as they do Trump, it is also true that they tend to despise Sanders waaayyyyy more than they did Obama. Keep in mind also, that we are not talking about a monolithic group. Most will do the right thing. The question is, what percent of those will act in bad faith. I think the answer might surprise you!

For all the blame Clinton supporters try to put on Bernie for Trump's win, they seem to ignore the Pied Piper strategy Clinton promoted:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...d-trump-214428

By the same token, Sanders supporters basically stood over the corpse of Clinton with a bloody knife and pointed to the guy next to them, saying "It isn't my fault, he's got a bigger knife!" There were plenty of reasons why Clinton lost. Each, including Sanders supporters and Hillary herself, hold a portion of the blame.

[Theleviathan]

How has the Electoral College been working out for them lately? Didn't seem to work in 2000 or 2016, did it? What if Trump wins the Electoral College again, while losing the popular vote, than what?

Though frankly getting rid of the Electoral College would be pretty hard, so maybe the US is just stuck with it, but at least tackle gerrymandering and voter surpression. Jeeze, where were the Dems when the GOP started gaming the system?



Someone who tries and fails still has a better chance of succeeding than someone who does not try at all.

The Electoral College has swung both directions, you don't have to go that far back to hear Republicans complain that it's rigged too. It becomes a convenient excuse for bad candidates or campaigns.

But with populations trending heavily to urban we've seen a number of hard red states start to shift towards purple or even blue. Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, etc. That trend will continue, it's just up to the Democrats not to lose that base of support over time.

[Theleviathan]

This comes down to pretty "First Day..."/"Kindergarten..." stuff.

If what is in blue is as you say it is, what does it tell you if Biden is not the Samsonite Gorilla while your seemingly incredibly flawed and weak Sanders is the suitcase?

If this Sanders that you are asserting is a walking train wreck is competing with Biden, how will Biden take the guy that beat HRC(since you seem to believe that HRC beating Sanders is some sort of an indicator...)?

"IF" it is true? Um, it's true slappy. Like so many posters try to do with you every day let me introduce you with a friend of mine. Name is Reality. You two should get acquainted sometime.

Now, reality can be harsh to someone like you. It may require you to get off your unicorn, get off the phone with your mermaid, and eat a few less magic mushrooms. But I promise, in the end, you'll be better for it. For example, you won't post stuff about AOC criticizing Biden and then refute a good argument with "2016". You'll understand that, in reality, there are only a handful of districts in the country she'd actually win. Or that 2018 happened with most of the candidates like her losing. Or that candidates such as her have no ability to win a senate seat in, say, Ohio. Or PA. Or Florida.

Now, before you do that thing where you deny all the truth in what I posted above, scurry to some dumbass talking point, and generally infuriate everyone with Bernie-adoring talking points: I like AOC. I'm glad she was elected! I hope more people like her are elected! But let me tell you about this friend of mine, I think I mentioned them already.....Reality!

Keep your posts there, or we can return to that question of mine you never answered. (Hint: Cuz you can't. Reality again. Reality is gonna be harsh to your point of view sorry to say. Truth generally is when you believe what you want to believe. Very Trumpian in fact)

[zinderel]

I By the same token, Sanders supporters basically stood over the corpse of Clinton with a bloody knife and pointed to the guy next to them, saying "It isn't my fault, he's got a bigger knife!" There were plenty of reasons why Clinton lost. Each, including Sanders supporters and Hillary herself, hold a portion of the blame.

100% co-sign.

[Mister Mets]

I feel like it is ''unpopular'' in certain polls due to semantics and efforts by the insurance industry to bad mouth it. The US health care system is insanely wasteful, IMO, it makes your health care system seem like a corporate welfare scheme.

Do you think Canada has a better or worse system than the US? Canada pays less money for its system than the US does and Canada has cheaper drugs and no medical bankruptcies. How many people in Canada want to change their system and how many people in the US change their system?

From my understanding, the Canadian system is heavily subsidized by the innovations of the US system.

The Canadian system has some flaws, especially in the waits for certain procedures, although it may be something that works better for the majority of people who are not upper-class or upper middle class (IE- the people able to afford particular procedures.)

One flaw in discussions of health-care policy is that American liberals are focused heavily on the British and Canadian systems, neglecting the alternatives in countries where the primary language isn't English.

I suppose that would be a subjective category, I think Bernie has the most interesting policies. I think both Obama and Bill Clinton had a lot of personal charisma, but I have mixed feelings towards Obama, but I do not like Bill Clinton, I think his legacy does not hold up and some of the stuff he was accused of he may actually be guilty of. For me, bold policy ideas are exciting than personal charisma.

But man, Biden is having trouble not babbling and has no exciting ideas. I just don't see how he is the brave Knight who will defeat Trump.

In the context of the 90s, Clinton did have a new vision and was a guy who could play the sax on Arsenio Hall. The people he disappointed were those who backed candidates who lost 49 states.

Though it is also worth noting that he only got 43% of the vote.

In the modern context, he's probably too centrist for Democrats, and the rape allegations are disqualifying.

A complex question is what is ultimately exciting to the greatest number of voters.

Whoever is the nominee will also benefit from the Democrats' visceral opposition to Trump. The prospect of Obama's running mate, or an elderly Jewish socialist, or a gay veteran, or a female professor, or a female prosecutor, or a Jewish New Yorker worth a lot more than Trump beating him will make them seem exciting.

[Theleviathan]

I feel like it is ''unpopular'' in certain polls due to semantics and efforts by the insurance industry to bad mouth it. The US health care system is insanely wasteful, IMO, it makes your health care system seem like a corporate welfare scheme. .

It's unpopularity is more to do with the fact that people don't like drastic change. To Bernie's credit, he is trying to dispel some of those myths and fears. Nevertheless, "kick me off my current insurance" is a fear of change too strong for most voters. That isn't just some polls, that particular issue polls really terribly very consistently.

When you and others say Biden is the easy punching bag, you're not paying attention to what drives people. Fear is effective and Bernie's policies give plenty of fodder for fear-mongering. Biden does not have as much vulnerability there. The fact that he can say, over and over, that he was part of the program that protected pre-existing conditions and served people well is a FAR stronger position on medical care than Bernie's. That isn't to say Biden's plan is better, but it's vulnerability to attack is far safer.

What Biden is running on is precisely what delivered 2018's sweeps in the House. That's significant.

[PwrdOn]

The Electoral College has swung both directions, you don't have to go that far back to hear Republicans complain that it's rigged too. It becomes a convenient excuse for bad candidates or campaigns.

But with populations trending heavily to urban we've seen a number of hard red states start to shift towards purple or even blue. Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, etc. That trend will continue, it's just up to the Democrats not to lose that base of support over time.

Why would Republicans ever complain about the electoral college, every single time it has conflicted with the popular vote, it was a Democrat who received more votes but lost the election. And even if future demographic shifts render this particular safeguard against democracy irrelevant, there is absolutely no chance that the GOP just goes quietly into the night and accepts the will of the people, they will just find another way to rig the system in their favor, and they're probably working hard on this now.

This Democratic strategy of just doing nothing and hoping that everything works out eventually is going to keep failing until they learn their lesson. It probably won't be in 2020 though, since they'll just run Biden, lose again, and conclude that the problem was that Biden was too far left for voters' tastes and that they need to do more to reach independent voters...

[worstblogever]

By the same token, Sanders supporters basically stood over the corpse of Clinton with a bloody knife and pointed to the guy next to them, saying "It isn't my fault, he's got a bigger knife!" There were plenty of reasons why Clinton lost. Each, including Sanders supporters and Hillary herself, hold a portion of the blame.

Ding, ding. That's the bell to call it.